Health on the Move 2011.

Discussion in 'Health, Fitness and Training' started by Simon Mason, Jan 27, 2011.

  1. Simon Mason

    Toom Tabard Guest

    Another axe-grinding example is on clothing:-

    "It is also urged that Highway Code Rule
    59 be amended to remove reference to cycle helmets and reflective
    clothing. The latter point
    conflicts with emphasising the duty of other road users to see
    cyclists, which in daylight are in
    fact adequately visible in lightly-coloured, ordinary clothing."

    All the Highway Code actually says is:-
    Clothing. You should wear

    •a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct
    size and securely fastened
    •appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled
    in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
    •light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users
    to see you in daylight and poor light
    •reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in
    the dark

    Yes, whether you are a pedestrian, cyclist or driver, other road users
    have duties of care towards you, as they do at common law of
    liability. But it is unwise to assume other road users will know or
    and unfailingly observe their duties to you. It is wise to make
    allowances for your own mistakes and misjudgement and those, plus a
    failure of obligations, of others.

    'Shoulds' in the Highway Code, are recommendations. Yes, cyclists
    should be visible if they wear light clothing, but there is nothing
    wrong with RECOMMENDING high-viz - the bright yellow/orange stuff as
    an optional extra margin. You'll be visible from a greater distance
    and will stand out better in complex traffic situations when your
    safety is partly reliant on you competing successfully for attention.

    What is wrong with suggesting cyclists merely be aware of this and
    consider it. There is little compensation when you are in A&E waiting
    to see if your legs can be put back on the right way round, in knowing
    that The Highway Code placed an obligation on the the other road user
    to see you. You might get a few hundred thousand in compensation, but
    most, on reflection (if I dare say that), would prefer the use of
    their legs. It only needs to be put in perspective of lowering further
    the low risks of cycling compared to the benefits.

    Toom Tabard, Jan 29, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. It's not the time of day in my case: the same road is fine in one
    direction and awful in the other regardless of the time of day, because
    one direction has a bus lane and the other has a shared-use pavement.

    It's the shared-use pavement and narrow all-traffic lane next to it
    which I'm avoiding by using a different route to get to work.
    Eleanor Blair, Jan 29, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. Simon Mason

    Toom Tabard Guest

    It is not clear what your point is in relation to the topic of the

    As someone well-informed, I've always been interested in supporting of
    the major health benefits of cycling, which is why I think the message
    should be presented positively without being swamped by what seems
    some obsessive and unnecessary flag-waving on particular issues. It's
    not clear who authored the main chapter and the appendix, but they
    also seem to have got a bit off the point.

    Toom Tabard, Jan 29, 2011
  4. Simon Mason

    Phil W Lee Guest

    No, a factual observation.
    Then why did you miss out "(see Section 2.4 below)." which immediately
    followed the statement you quoted, and which pointed to a detailed
    discussion of not only that specific statistic but all the other
    supporting statistics from around the world.
    But entirely logical, for the reasons given in the text surrounding it
    (which again you have omitted)
    You don't need detailed statistics to show that cycling is less
    prevalent in MK than in Cambridge, Oxford, or York.
    You've shown admirably how people pull out the silly statements, and
    failed completely to discredit what is an excellent paper.
    Easily rectified.
    Phil W Lee, Jan 29, 2011
  5. Simon Mason

    Marc Guest

    Why the disparity?

    Maybe this picture will go some way to explaining?[email protected]/5398176429/

    I took this picture this afternoon during a Cub Scout badge day where I
    was working on the cyclist badge "base"

    Because of the perception of danger in cycling the retailer applied a
    sticker to this monstrosity, and then sold it.

    Because of the perception of danger in cycling, the Scout Association
    has a strict helmet rule , (in contrast to it's rules for every other
    activity which follow NGB rules).

    Because of the perception of danger in cycling ,during the planning
    stage for the event, every other Scout Leader on the base only thought
    about helmets, and until I intervened and mentioned gloves helmets were
    the only eqpt that the Cub's parents were told to supply.
    Marc, Jan 29, 2011
  6. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    Because it sets a dangerous precedent. Look at NL and Denmark where
    ordinary people cycle around big cities in ordinary clothes and no
    helmets. Other road users seem to be able to operate around them
    without hitting them easily enough. By stating that you should wear a
    helmet and hi-vis before you venture out, puts the onus on the cyclist
    and they could be seen as partly culpable if they were hit as a weasel
    lawyer could use the contributory negligence card. The little old lady
    popping down to the corner shop should *not* be expected to don a
    foam hat and a builder's vest before she heads out. Anyway, the day
    black leather clad bikers and black cars are discouraged is the day I
    might listen to you.

    As it happens I am all in black at the moment but use very powerful f
    +r flashing lights to be seen by.
    Simon Mason, Jan 29, 2011
  7. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    They are quite common.
    My Trek road bike has a similar sticker on it as supplied new from the
    Simon Mason, Jan 29, 2011
  8. Simon Mason

    Toom Tabard Guest

    Fine, but what place has the specific detail of this, and campaigning
    to change the highway code got to do with a paper which seems to be on
    health and cycling.
    The whole paper seems overwhelmed by some person or persons working
    their way through the whole repertoire of bees in their bunnet on
    contentious cycling issues rather than adopting the more focussed
    approach of the paper on walking, anf that ruins it's effect.

    The little old lady
    I find it better for individuals to be made aware of the issues and
    encouraged to form their own conclusions and act accordingly.
    That's how I work rather than waiting until somebody else discourages
    some colour.
    That's another good way of doing it.

    Toom Tabard, Jan 29, 2011
  9. Simon Mason

    Toom Tabard Guest

    Fine - put that into perspective in a couple of positive parapgraphs.
    If the purpose of the paper is mainly to feature the health benefits
    of cycling, concentrate on that positively. I'm not sure who the
    intended audience is for 11 pages of detailed analysis of death,
    injury and risk on the road or where 5 pages of misrepresentation and
    selective slanted bias of the helmet issue helps. It's inappropriate
    obsessive axe-grinding which has no place there.

    Toom Tabard, Jan 29, 2011
  10. Simon Mason

    acdc Guest

    How on earth can that be a factual observation?

    How on earth do you *know* that for a fact?

    Because I looked at section 2.4 and I could see no reference to the
    source of that statistic.

    If you believe that statistic - please can you point out precisely
    where it comes from.

    Just so there is no confusion - you are looking for a source of the
    statistic that there has been no increase in the number of serious
    cycling injuries in London in the last ten years.

    I would love this to be true. I do not believe it is - I must admit I
    have never seen this claimed previously. Have you?

    I am sure there is a table of the number of serious cycle injuries in
    London each year for the last ten years - I would just love to see it.

    If you can show where it comes from then I in turn can quote it to my
    friends with confidnece.

    I could not do that at the moment.

    That is just one person's view.

    Whether or not it is logical to remove it, depends on the reasons fro it
    being there.

    I personally think it is stupid to remove that statement just because
    its presence could be inferred to mean that cycling is dangerous and the
    cyclists needs to take every precaution necessary to stop *other people*
    running in to them.

    I would rather simple precautions were taken which actually *made* the
    cycling safer, rather than some hypothetical viewpoint.

    Or do you believe that hi-viz and helmets serve no useful purpose to the

    No - but it would have more more sense if there had been an explantion
    as to why cycling is not common place, if indeed cycle ownership was
    higher there than the national average as stated.

    Have you any ideas why that should be so?

    If it is a direct result of the Redways and the road layouts, then I
    would like to know why.

    Well at least we agree that it did contain those silly statements -
    which was exactly the point I was trying to make - so thanks at least
    for that agreement.
    acdc, Jan 29, 2011
  11. Simon Mason

    Marc Guest

    But did they sell it with the same set up?
    Marc, Jan 29, 2011
    Hash: SHA1

    I ave a feeling that this comes out of the old Faculty of Public Health
    group, I must dig around in my records.

    - --
    Guy Chapman,
    The usenet price promise: all opinions are guaranteed
    to be worth at least what you paid for them.
    PGP public key at
    Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -

    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Just zis Guy, you know?, Jan 29, 2011
  13. Simon Mason

    Marc Guest

    Squeek Squeek Squeek!

    The sound of goalposts being wheeled around.

    You wanted to know why the difference in treatment, you were shown the
    reasons(s) , now you change tack to suggest your different way of doing
    it. If you want to do it go ahead, no one is stopping you.
    Marc, Jan 29, 2011
  14. Simon Mason

    Rob Morley Guest

    Are you sure it was sold by a bike shop and not a supermarket or
    mail-order box shifter?
    Rob Morley, Jan 30, 2011
  15. Simon Mason

    Marc Guest

    I said retailer and the same thinking applies, "Don't worry if it's
    assembled incorrectly , as long as a helmet is worn" that thinking is
    sold to the parents and to the Scout Association.

    Can you see a supermarket/mail order selling a toaster with incorrect
    wiring and a sticker saying " Be safe, wear rubber gloves"?

    Cycling safety has been made into a one (false) issue sideshow that
    blames the victim for not looking after themselves, and that's why so
    many pages need to be used to debunk the previous misinformation.
    Marc, Jan 30, 2011
  16. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    Simon Mason, Jan 30, 2011
  17. Back to front forks, brake levers rotated to an unusable position?
    Alan Braggins, Jan 30, 2011
  18. Simon Mason

    Ace Guest

    I think you should perhaps take a closer look at the original picture,
    and think about what 'setup' meant in this context.
    Quite shocking, isn't it?
    Ace, Jan 30, 2011
  19. Simon Mason

    Mike Causer Guest

    Mike Causer, Jan 30, 2011
  20. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    No - I was solely responding to the point regarding the application of
    the warning sticker.
    Simon Mason, Jan 30, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.